How many of you always wear a helmet?

[Ben Lovejoy]

So, this weather, eh ... ?

[JohnW]

"I could not care less what the CTC has to say or offer. I care about me me me!!!!!"

I take it that you're a motorist then John.

I am not sure that this has any relevance? I drive a car about 1 time per week for the food shop. Last Years total mileage was 3000.
John.

Well, it was the "I care about me, me, me" bit that was so redolent of so many of the motorists that it is the misfortune of humans to encounter.

I wish all motorists only did a maximum of 3000 miles a year - a bit less than a third of my average mileage, and probably yours too.

But seriously, the arguments on this thread are all well made and rational, but it's still a matter of choice; the CTC recognises and honours that, and makes no attempt at judgment or persuasion.

I don't perceive this as "sitting on the fence" - after all, if the CTC did come down in favour of either wearing or non-wearing, the proponents of the opposite lobby would come down on Councill like a ton of bricks, with a "who do they think they are, dictating to us.........?" attack.

I've already said that I don't like wearing a helmet, but after my experience, and with the nagging voice that says that some protection must be better than none, I now choose to wear one.

With respect to the suggestion that helmet wearers are more likely to have an accident..........is this authentic, and is there any reliable supporting data?

JohnW.

John,
First of all, I did not lie. My car was driven by me 3008 miles last Year between MOTs. Truthfully.
I drive to Supermarket 10 miles each way once per week. I drive to see our children back home in Dorset a few times each Year. Yesterday I drove to the Garden Centre 11 miles each way. The whole Year each and every Year is more or less the same. Yes I drive. Yes I own a 'prestige' car. No I do not lie.
I still say that CTC is Liberal wishy washy with a mish mash of views. This is purposely done to try to please all. It does not work. Where has the CTC Club gone/
John.

Ah John - you have totally misinterpreted and thereby misunderstood my post.

I have never had a car : I have never held a driving license - heaven forbid that : my 10,000 miles annually is solely on the bike (on two or three actually). My suggestion was that, if you are a motorist, and if you only drive about 3,000 miles a year (which I don't question - why should I?), then the bulk of your mileage, presumably, must be by cycle, and could very well be the same as my cycling mileage.

I didn't use the word "lie", I never suggested you were telling a "lie" and it never occured to me that you may be "lying".

Dear me!!!!

I seem to disagree with you about a certain aspect of the CTC, but there it is, we both have our right to our own perception.

[reohn2]

It's a scientific FACT that Adam and Eve ruined us all, for the sake of an apple. One of the repercussions of their greed was that we are now burdened with the responsibility of FREE WILL.

It's really a damned nuisance, as most of us would prefer somebody else to make decisions on our behalf- but there it is!

[stoobs]

So, this weather, eh ... ?

I know, does anyone want an otherwise-useless helmet to keep patches of their head protected from it?

[Paul Power]

So, what else shall we talk about? Ben

nothing really, regarding helmets. we are just about unanimously in agreement with the CTCs standpoint, that it's for the individual to choose.

to call for them to be banned would be as mad as to call for compulsion

Indeed, but compulsory wearing of helmets had already landed via the back door.

For example, our insurance company, which is the same insurers as the CTC have now dicated with immediate effect that those hiring our bicycles will in order to be insured have to wear cycle helmets.

This is a fairly major change and our view is that we won't be hiring any bicycles.

Our policy is based on the fact that I believe that's it's impossible for us as private business to ensure that our hirers wear a cycle helmet when no such statuatory requirement exists.

For example, someone hires on of our bikes, we provide a helmet, they don't wear it, they get wiped out (for whatever reason), our insurance company then investigate. The police say the rider wasn't wearing a helmet. Case closed as far as the insurance goes, so we then get personally sued by the rider or their family.

Not a risk I'm willing to take. So we won't be hiring bicycles.

Given this company are the market leader in cycling insurance products and also the CTC's insurers, I believe we're only a breath away from a similar condition being imposed on the CTC's insurance. ie, in order to be covered, you'll have to wear a helmet.

Were helmet wearing to be introduced as a compulsory condition of availing of the CTC's insurance, legal cover etc, how would members react?

The chances of the CTC finding a different insurance company are fairly slim to say least, as like us, they've gone with the market leaders.

Like it or not, it does very much appear that compulsory cycle helmet wearing is creeping in via the backdoor.

I also wonder how long it is before employers agreeging to the Cycle To Work Scheme will also insist their cycle to work employees wear helmets to and from work?



Paul

[bovlomov]

Paul,

I suggest a polite letter to your insurers, asking them how they arrived at this policy. Which scientific papers did they read? etc.

Probably they haven't given it any thought. I had correspondence with Transport for London for over a year, about why they promoted helmet use.

Whether one thinks helmets are a good idea or not, it is amazing that they could not direct me to any research that they had read, nor any policy meetings that they had had on the subject. Someone had just decided that it was a good idea.

With any luck, some direct questioning might just embarrass them a bit.

[Paul Power]

Paul,

I suggest a polite letter to your insurers, asking them how they arrived at this policy. Which scientific papers did they read? etc.

Probably they haven't given it any thought. I had correspondence with Transport for London for over a year, about why they promoted helmet use.

Whether one thinks helmets are a good idea or not, it is amazing that they could not direct me to any research that they had read, nor any policy meetings that they had had on the subject. Someone had just decided that it was a good idea.

With any luck, some direct questioning might just embarrass them a bit.

Good advice, however we have had a rather lengthy telephone correspondence on the matter and we got nowhere. I'm afraid it's a take it or leave it scenario. So we've decided to leave it. However we are staying with this insurance company as to date we've found them very good.

Paul

[hubgearfreak]

Not a risk I'm willing to take. So we won't be hiring bicycles.

it's very sad (but understandable) that the fear of litigation stops that part of your business. sadder still that you effectively can't get insurance as they're asking unreasonable things of you to make it valid.

[Lawrie9]

To me not wearing a helmet is all about freedom. The freedom to just get on your bike and go. I loathe this form of nanny state-ism and political interference that is creeping into every facet of life. We must stand up otherwise the lawmakers will compel us to wear helmets. Wearing a helmet whilst cycling is about as as alluring as swimming in a duffel coat.

[Sares]

I also wonder how long it is before employers agreeging to the Cycle To Work Scheme will also insist their cycle to work employees wear helmets to and from work?
Paul

Seeing as my company's position on the CTW scheme is that they won't offer it because for health and safety reasons they don't want people risking their lives on cycles at all (which we are in the process of arguing against), I have no doubt that should they eventually implement it, helmets will be required, both for business mileage and for commuting.

[aesmith]

Judging by the new Corporate Manslaughter legislation, not long. We're now required to all sorts of risk assessments for company travel, and actually run the risk of imprisonment of managers or directors, for example if an employee were to have a fatal accident while on a business journey and it was found that the manager/director hadn't fulfilled his "duty of care".

[thirdcrank]

Corporate manslaughter is simply intended to bring an organisation within the criminal law when people higher up the hierarchy duck their responsibilities. It does not change the law of what constitutes manslaughter. I cannot see how permiiting somebody to choose not to wear a helmet when cycling would amount to manslaughter.

[drossall]

It doesn't need to. All that is required is for people to believe that it does, and act accordingly to "protect" themselves.

[potholed]

I never use one but believe that nothing short of a full face motorbike crash helmet will do. Can't see that a bit of expanded polystyrene perched on top of my head will make much difference. I have come off many times and have only once banged my head on the road. I hit my cheek-bone and no cycle helmet I have seen would protect this area. The damage was superficial and minor. On every other occasion I have put my arm out to protect my head. I was even hit head on by a Vauxhall Cavalier on one occasion- driven by a policeman!- he was overtaking and on my side of the road doing 50mph plus. My leg and arm were injured but my head wasn't touched!

So helmets seem to be irrelevant to me. A full face crash helmet would be effective but impractical. Anything less than this is merely paying lip service to safety!

rgds
potholed

[Ben Lovejoy]

A full face crash helmet would be effective but impractical. Anything less than this is merely paying lip service to safety!

And being inside a car is safer than being on a motorcycle ... do you also tell motorcyclists that leathers and full-face crash-helmets are "paying lip service to safety"?

Ben